compose_technical

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With destructiveHint=true already declared, the description adds real value by explaining the concrete destructive mechanism: replacing an existing file requires expectedRevision for 'explicit replacement', and it notes the typed-notation constraint. It does not disclose what happens on a revision mismatch or the scope of what gets overwritten, keeping it below 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the creation purpose, followed by the discovery pointer and the replacement constraint. The diagram-type enumeration is somewhat long but serves routing value; no sentence is purely filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive, nested-object mutation tool with 20% schema coverage and no output schema, the description strategically defers exact field requirements to the drawfather://schema/technical resource and flags the key destructive precondition. Preview and includeSource remain undocumented, but the deferral to an authoritative schema keeps it largely complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 20%, so the description carries a heavier burden. It adds meaning for expectedRevision (replacement guard) and design (typed nodes/connections), but preview and includeSource go entirely unexplained in both schema and description, so it only partially compensates.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb ('Create') plus a well-scoped resource ('typed flowchart, sequence, C4, ER, state, class, dataflow, dependency, activity or deployment drawings'), which clearly places it in the technical-diagram domain. It distinguishes itself from compose_creative by the enumerated technical diagram types, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the generic compose_drawing sibling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides a concrete workflow ('Discover get_capabilities topic technical and read drawfather://schema/technical for exact fields') and a conditional requirement ('Existing files require expectedRevision for explicit replacement'). It lacks an explicit when-not or named-alternative comparison against compose_drawing/compose_creative, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.